Where are the WMD's? Er.. in Syria of course!

vorbis

klaz, firstly the iraqi miltary was in a pretty decrepid state for the last couple of years. they certainly didn't have the ability to take on Iran. Secondly, the iranians probably realise that they wouldn't win a pitched battle with the americans no matter how big the army. i.e. the americans would beat an iranian army with 5000 tanks or 50000 tanks. Theres really no reason why the iranians would have an army larger than the minimum size needed for a detterent against the iraqis.

I also would be highly doubtful of the US using nukes. The fallout from it would be too great. To me India and Pakistan are far more likely to use some kind of nuclear weapon.

klaz, firstly the iraqi miltary was in a pretty decrepid state for the last couple of years. they certainly didn't have the ability to take on Iran.

Old memories die hard. They no doubt remembered what it was like to be invaded by Iraq, and wanted to be prepared should it happen again. While the Iraqi army was a shadow of itself, it still had the capacity to deal alot of damage to another country.

Secondly, the iranians probably realise that they wouldn't win a pitched battle with the americans no matter how big the army. i.e. the americans would beat an iranian army with 5000 tanks or 50000 tanks.

Thats not necessarily so. The US relis on having forward bases from which to launch strikes. I'm basing this idea on the fact that Iran has closer links with the other Arab nations, and would probably fight with allies should the US invade. Gone are the days that the Arab nations will allow themselves to be picked off one by one by the West.

I also would be highly doubtful of the US using nukes. The fallout from it would be too great.

I dunno. Nukes, I doubt them being used. However, the US has the largest biological & chemical arsenals in the world. Should they decide it was needed, with their current mentality, they'd be a huge danger. Or don't you think they're capable of using any WMD's?

halkar

Now we are getting at the root of the problems If US thinks that they need WMDs for their defense why shouldn't Syria need them? They need to defend themselves too from any invading force (US probably) . We don't see US attacking North Korea. So looks like having nukes or WMDs is a way to go thanks to US policies of giving fears to the world nations. Are US really as peacefull as we think? :rolleyes:

Gurgle

Originally posted by Vorbis:
I also would be highly doubtful of the US using nukes

Lets pop the word again into that sentence and see how convincingly it reads.

Originally posted by halkar:
If US thinks that they need WMDs for their defense why shouldn't Syria need them? They need to defend themselves too from any invading force (US probably) . We don't see US attacking North Korea.

Exactly!

There is no doubt that Iraq did have them (" we have the receipt"), equally there seems to be no doubt that they were gone by the time of the invasion.

Welcome to the 21st century arms race.
I would be surprised not to see nukes used again in the next 20 years.

Zulu

Originally posted by Wrestlemania

Did Israeli ever ask for war no.
Israel reacts to aggression.
Each time there was a truce or peace agreement the other side broke it.
They dont look like fanatics, they look like people who just want to live, why should they struggle or goto war.

You might be interested to see peaceful isreal in action...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3713585.stm

"The Israeli army has begun razing homes in Rafah refugee camp in the Gaza Strip as details emerged of a government plan to demolish hundreds of houses. ......"

Nice - really nice, but I suppose the are all terrorists living in them houses :rolleyes:

"News agency reports speak of panic-stricken residents holding onto personal belongings and waving white flags at approaching Israeli forces.

Israeli helicopters are also reported to have fired missiles into the Rafah refugee camp, injuring several people. "

Refugees are terrorists too I suppose...

vorbis

gurgle, the only atomic bombs ever dropped were a mere fraction of the power of todays nuclear weapons. i'd also believe that they were thought of as an extremely large bomb at the time. the true nature of the radiation issue wasn't fully apparent. So I'd highly doubt that the Amercians would use nukes again.

Also people seem to be forgetting that the US has no need to use wmds. Its conventional arsenal is hardly weak. I'm also far more worried at the idea of India or North Korea having nuclear arsenals than America having them.

also gurgle i must have missed this 21st century arms race. Whos it between?

Zulu

Originally posted by vorbis

Also people seem to be forgetting that the US has no need to use wmds.

It's highly debateable wheither they needed to use nukes then either

Sleipnir

Originally posted by Gurgle

There is no doubt that Iraq did have them

No doubt?
You're saying Iraq had useable nuclear warheads? I've never seen any proof of that.

Weapons grade nuclear material is notoriously difficult to manufacture and it is extremely unlikely that Iraq had gotten to the stage where they could get enough raw materials to make it. Nevermind actually get the end-product required and also have a workable method of delivery.

halkar

US is the only country that used nuclear arsenal and they are probably most capable to do so for their own benefits. Did they really need to nuke Japan in WW2? Their arsenal was still capable fighting without going extreme. And they probably would have used their nuclear arsenal against Saddam if they had faced an heavy opposition. And again they probably did, who knows.:rolleyes:

vorbis

It's highly debateable wheither they needed to use nukes then either

US army estimated that they would incur something in the region of one million casualties by invading the japanese mainland. (need to go check that) They took a judgement call. In a war situation, most countries to put it brutally value their troops lives over the enemy's.

Moriarty

Originally posted by klaz
Thats the thing though. Its their oil. Its not a shared resource that everyone has a right to. The Oil lies within their borders, and if they decide not to sell, they have that right.

I'm in two minds about this. On the one hand as you say, it is a resource in their territory and normal 'practice' recognises their exclusive right to do what they wish with it. On the other hand, I think oil is a unique case. I can think of no reason a country would not want to sell oil other than to greatly harm other country's economys. That could easily be interpreted as an act of war. It's a modern day Damocles sword that these oil producers can hang over the rest of the industrialised world as they wish. No one likes to be in that position, most espically the powerful. Sooner or later, one of those powerful countries will decide that enough is enough and attempt to remove that sword dangling over them.

Originally posted by klaz
The other aspect is that if this resource is so valuable why does the US consume so much of it in a wasteful manner?

Rather OT, but I'd say it's probably because, excluding a few burps along the way, the US has had a steady plentiful supply of the stuff for the past 50 years. As you may have noticed, the geo-political situation has changed rather drasticly over the past 10-15 years.

Originally posted by klaz
Oil shouldn't be a reason to go to War. At least not an acceptable one.

Why? What would you consider to be an acceptable reason to go to war?

Wrestlemania

Originally posted by vorbis
US army estimated that they would incur something in the region of one million casualties by invading the japanese mainland. (need to go check that) They took a judgement call. In a war situation, most countries to put it brutally value their troops lives over the enemy's.

If I remember from School a few hundred thousand but a million would'nt be ruled out.

Also if I remember there was several scores of Russians divisions heading to Japan that also swayed the Japanese.

But what about dirty bombs! Forget about the arms race all we need is someone to build a small one and set it off in Washington, then were all F*cked.

bonkey

OK... couple of things :

1) The US are making noises about developing "clean" nukes as "super bunker busters" and as other forms of tactical or battlefield weapons, so anyone saying that the US wouldn't use nukes again is deluding themselves, as it is clearly making steps to turn its nuclear arsenal from a primarily defensive role of dubious use to one of dual-use or even primarily offensive use.

This has been mentioned and refernced buckets of times here before, but if anyone really wants links, I'll go and dig them up when I'm not quite so hungover.

2) Wrestlemania - I am tired of having to warn you about courtesy to other posters, which seems to occur about once every thread you get involved in where the word Israel is mentioned by someone who isn't gushing with praise for said nation. I'm not going to do it again. I don't care how biased, ill-informed, or otherwise flawed you feel their opinions and posts are. either remain civil or reap what you sow. Your choice.

jc

Wrestlemania

hmmmmmmmmmmm!

Gurgle

Originally posted by vorbis:
gurgle, the only atomic bombs ever dropped were a mere fraction of the power of todays nuclear weapons.

Irrelevant. They used the biggest baddest weapons available on populated cities.

Originally posted by vorbis:
the true nature of the radiation issue wasn't fully apparent

I believe that to be inaccurate!
I don't think the WW2 US military deserve the benefit of the doubt on that one.
The hiroshima bomb was not the first nuke ever detonated. Extensive studies were done in testing, they knew.

Originally posted by vorbis:
also gurgle i must have missed this 21st century arms race. Whos it between?

Its a multilateral race, just getting started (its only 2004 you know). Its likely to involve any countries who fear invasion. WMDs are the only known deterrent against a US invasion. The US themselves are still developing weapons rapidly - smart bombs, the MOAB, etc. and they are probably the least likely country on earth to be invaded.

Originally posted by Sleipnir:
No doubt?
You're saying Iraq had useable nuclear warhead? I've never seen any proof of that.

Sorry, I wasn't clear - Iraq had useable WMDs.
Chemical weapons in this case.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Wrestlemania
Corinthian i am chrisitan not jewish and i dont expect terms for my neighbours just mutal human respect..no more no less.

Your background is immaterial. I made two points; firstly that one cannot expect human respect if you don’t give it. Perhaps the Irish should have remained contented under British rule by a similar logic to yours.

The second is regardless of your background (although, as an observation, the very fact that you say that I have made assumptions of your background is an indication of the polar and even racist nature of this conflict) you have a very black & white opinion of the situation that precludes even your entertaining an opposing view.

Victor

Why are we discussing Israel and Iraq to such an extent in a thread about Syria?

Iran's expenditure is likely higher because incomes are higher and the population is much bigger (three times). It also borders both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Originally posted by klaz
I'm basing this idea on the fact that Iran has closer links with the other Arab nations,

Iran isn't an Arab nation. They are Persians that speak Farsi.

Originally posted by Wrestlemania
But what about dirty bombs! Forget about the arms race all we need is someone to build a small one and set it off in Washington, then were all F*cked.

Why Washington? There are much "better" targets like New York.